(07-14-2014 11:57 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:44 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here are the main reasons soccer will never become mainstream in America

1) The vast majority of Americans simply view soccer as too 'foreign'. Football is the number one sport followed by the great American pastime of baseball and the passion of basketball. These three sports somehow bring forth national and regional pride that cannot be captured by Soccer. There is no feeling of 'closeness' to the teams or the entire idea. In America people are fiercely loyal to their local teams. They display this on their cars and their clothing. It is not only as source of pride in the sport but also in where you are from and who you are.

2) For the vast majority of Americans Soccer is simply boring. There is no blood and guts in the sport. It does not have the intensity of football or even baseball. It does not have the extremes of Basketball. It is just flat out boring to watch. Yes, as children we like to play it but certainly don't want to actually watch it unless our kids are playing the sport. Then we are forced to be in the audience but to spend an entire Sunday watching Soccer is just not in the DNA of most Americans who crave a harder sport with more excitement.

3) Even the scoring of Soccer is boring. Many Americans just shake their head over the whole score concept of Soccer and force out a yawn when asked.

4) There is simply no strategy in Soccer. It is no where near as strategic as football.

5) We are not surrounded by nations that are our adversaries. No other nation is our equal, therefore, global rivalries are not as important to us as they are to less powerful nations.

Your opinion was just as valid as any other until this point.

Just trying to give you the reasons.

Soccer isn't dependent on international rivalries. International play is a relatively small segment of the sport. Even then Mexico is a BIG rivalry. Put that game anywhere in either of the two countries and you'll get over 100K.

Now the strategy part is just wrong.

(07-14-2014 11:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:41 AM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending.

The London Olympics made a profit.

Not if you include the costs of converting the Olympic stadium to a football venue. That costs 90 million pounds. The games "profit" was 52 million pounds. There was a lot of 'creative' accounting going on there. London was well run, but it wasn't profitable.

I can put things in quotation marks and inverted commas to deny the facts too, but I don't. The games made money (even if only a trivial amount) and regenerated a huge area of London as well as garnering investment for school sports programs. Britain is better of for having had London host the Olympics. Totally worth it. Is Russia better off for having had Sochi, is Brazil better off for having had the World Cup? I'd say no.

Even the developed nations that have rabid soccer fans do not have the same upward mobility potential like we have in the U.S. I'm not saying that there aren't any rags to riches stories in Germany, UK and France, but the odds of it happening there are so much lower than in the U.S., that it helps explain why people latch onto something like soccer so fiercely. What makes it especially seductive for countries like Brazil and Argentina is the populations in each country are largely poor. I think the notion is that if a team from Brazil beats the U.S. or a developed European country, then it's a "win" for poor people against the rich. While on the surface it appears like a lot of national pride is welling up in these people, I think it has more to do with socioeconomic issues than nationalism for most fans.

Maybe for some fans - perhaps in the UK - there is more of a nationalism component as opposed to a means as escape an impoverished existence. IDK. The justifications that I saw in the article draw some parallels to what we see with cities trying to entice professional sports teams to move along with the idea of city/state gov'ts funding brand new stadiums.

(07-14-2014 12:03 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:41 AM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending.

The London Olympics made a profit.

Not if you include the costs of converting the Olympic stadium to a football venue. That costs 90 million pounds. The games "profit" was 52 million pounds. There was a lot of 'creative' accounting going on there. London was well run, but it wasn't profitable.

I can put things in quotation marks and inverted commas to deny the facts too, but I don't. The games made money (even if only a trivial amount) and regenerated a huge area of London as well as garnering investment for school sports programs. Britain is better of for having had London host the Olympics. Totally worth it. Is Russia better off for having had Sochi, is Brazil better off for having had the World Cup? I'd say no.

Yea, but if the profit was 52 million pounds and then the government outside of that calculation spent 90 million pounds to convert a stadium for soccer and then hand it off to a low end EPL team then how is this a profitable venture. That's just one example of how the Accounting of the London Games was wacky.

(07-14-2014 11:21 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Please add food along with the women and athletics comparison of Brazil and UK.

I've lived in both Britain and America for years. I'd take food smack from the French, Spanish and Italians, but from Americans it's just silly.

Britain and America have some outstanding food, especially when it comes to ingredients, and London and New York are probably the best food cities in the world. The general food culture from both countries sucks though when compared to our mainland European friends.

And besides soccer and beach volleyball, Britain is a far superior athletic nation.

The women though? Zero argument from me, there's a reason why I date a Colombian.

(07-14-2014 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:03 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:41 AM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending.

The London Olympics made a profit.

Not if you include the costs of converting the Olympic stadium to a football venue. That costs 90 million pounds. The games "profit" was 52 million pounds. There was a lot of 'creative' accounting going on there. London was well run, but it wasn't profitable.

I can put things in quotation marks and inverted commas to deny the facts too, but I don't. The games made money (even if only a trivial amount) and regenerated a huge area of London as well as garnering investment for school sports programs. Britain is better of for having had London host the Olympics. Totally worth it. Is Russia better off for having had Sochi, is Brazil better off for having had the World Cup? I'd say no.

Yea, but if the profit was 52 million pounds and then the government outside of that calculation spent 90 million pounds to convert a stadium for soccer and then hand it off to a low end EPL team then how is this a profitable venture. That's just one example of how the Accounting of the London Games was wacky.

The government (or rather the London Legacy Development Corporation which is part of the London Government) own the stadium. They're charging rent to West Ham (2m per year for a 99 year lease), they're going to host athletic events (2017 Athletics World Championships), it will host games for the Rugby World Cup in 2016. The stadium now is an enterprise which will make money, whether or not you count it as part of the cost of the Olympics, you cannot consider the 90m in isolation without including the money that will be made from the stadium upgrades in years to come.

(07-14-2014 12:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:57 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:44 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here are the main reasons soccer will never become mainstream in America

1) The vast majority of Americans simply view soccer as too 'foreign'. Football is the number one sport followed by the great American pastime of baseball and the passion of basketball. These three sports somehow bring forth national and regional pride that cannot be captured by Soccer. There is no feeling of 'closeness' to the teams or the entire idea. In America people are fiercely loyal to their local teams. They display this on their cars and their clothing. It is not only as source of pride in the sport but also in where you are from and who you are.

2) For the vast majority of Americans Soccer is simply boring. There is no blood and guts in the sport. It does not have the intensity of football or even baseball. It does not have the extremes of Basketball. It is just flat out boring to watch. Yes, as children we like to play it but certainly don't want to actually watch it unless our kids are playing the sport. Then we are forced to be in the audience but to spend an entire Sunday watching Soccer is just not in the DNA of most Americans who crave a harder sport with more excitement.

3) Even the scoring of Soccer is boring. Many Americans just shake their head over the whole score concept of Soccer and force out a yawn when asked.

4) There is simply no strategy in Soccer. It is no where near as strategic as football.

5) We are not surrounded by nations that are our adversaries. No other nation is our equal, therefore, global rivalries are not as important to us as they are to less powerful nations.

Your opinion was just as valid as any other until this point.

Just trying to give you the reasons.

Soccer isn't dependent on international rivalries. International play is a relatively small segment of the sport. Even then Mexico is a BIG rivalry. Put that game anywhere in either of the two countries and you'll get over 100K.

Now the strategy part is just wrong.

It's not dependent, but it's a component we do not share.

Soccer will never become mainstream in the US and that is another reason why.

(07-14-2014 12:20 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:03 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:41 AM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  The London Olympics made a profit.

Not if you include the costs of converting the Olympic stadium to a football venue. That costs 90 million pounds. The games "profit" was 52 million pounds. There was a lot of 'creative' accounting going on there. London was well run, but it wasn't profitable.

I can put things in quotation marks and inverted commas to deny the facts too, but I don't. The games made money (even if only a trivial amount) and regenerated a huge area of London as well as garnering investment for school sports programs. Britain is better of for having had London host the Olympics. Totally worth it. Is Russia better off for having had Sochi, is Brazil better off for having had the World Cup? I'd say no.

Yea, but if the profit was 52 million pounds and then the government outside of that calculation spent 90 million pounds to convert a stadium for soccer and then hand it off to a low end EPL team then how is this a profitable venture. That's just one example of how the Accounting of the London Games was wacky.

The government (or rather the London Legacy Development Corporation which is part of the London Government) own the stadium. They're charging rent to West Ham (2m per year for a 99 year lease), they're going to host athletic events (2017 Athletics World Championships), it will host games for the Rugby World Cup in 2016. The stadium now is an enterprise which will make money, whether or not you count it as part of the cost of the Olympics, you cannot consider the 90m in isolation without including the money that will be made from the stadium upgrades in years to come.

Not convinced. And 2 m a year for that much space in London? Doesn't sound like market rates.

(07-14-2014 12:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:57 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:44 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here are the main reasons soccer will never become mainstream in America

1) The vast majority of Americans simply view soccer as too 'foreign'. Football is the number one sport followed by the great American pastime of baseball and the passion of basketball. These three sports somehow bring forth national and regional pride that cannot be captured by Soccer. There is no feeling of 'closeness' to the teams or the entire idea. In America people are fiercely loyal to their local teams. They display this on their cars and their clothing. It is not only as source of pride in the sport but also in where you are from and who you are.

2) For the vast majority of Americans Soccer is simply boring. There is no blood and guts in the sport. It does not have the intensity of football or even baseball. It does not have the extremes of Basketball. It is just flat out boring to watch. Yes, as children we like to play it but certainly don't want to actually watch it unless our kids are playing the sport. Then we are forced to be in the audience but to spend an entire Sunday watching Soccer is just not in the DNA of most Americans who crave a harder sport with more excitement.

3) Even the scoring of Soccer is boring. Many Americans just shake their head over the whole score concept of Soccer and force out a yawn when asked.

4) There is simply no strategy in Soccer. It is no where near as strategic as football.

5) We are not surrounded by nations that are our adversaries. No other nation is our equal, therefore, global rivalries are not as important to us as they are to less powerful nations.

Your opinion was just as valid as any other until this point.

Just trying to give you the reasons.

Soccer isn't dependent on international rivalries. International play is a relatively small segment of the sport. Even then Mexico is a BIG rivalry. Put that game anywhere in either of the two countries and you'll get over 100K.

Now the strategy part is just wrong.

It's not dependent, but it's a component we do not share.

Soccer will never become mainstream in the US and that is another reason why.

Im sure in 20 years ago you probably were saying the events we saw he when it came to watching the WC would never happen.

Fyi 64,000 people decided it was worth watching a domestic soccer game in seattle yesterday

(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

Brazil's government could fall over the cost of the WC and the Olympics. Brazil spent 20 Billion on the WC. What did they get for their money? A month of tourism, and multiple stadia that will have no use after the games. Manaus, where they spent several hundred million on a stadium, doesn't even have a soccer team. Brasilia's stadium cost over a billion bucks. Brasilia doesn't have a top level Brazilian soccer team.

Putin spent over 51 Billion for the Olympics in Sochi. Russian Oligarchs spent another 20 Billion. Games are over and now....there's little use for those facilities. Russians would rather go to Europe to ski, Turkey/Spain are warmer and nicer, and the whole place is empty.

Russia has announced that it will spend 20 Billion for World Cup 2018. Given the level of corruption and overruns at Sochi, as well as the extreme reluctance of Russian buisnesspersons to donate heavily again, the cost is estimated to rise to 75 Billion. Russia is building massive stadiums in places where there will be little, if any, use for the stadiums after the games. Yekaterinburg and Kaliningrad are two examples.

Qatar isn't even pretending that there will be any use for its stadiums after they host the World Cup in 2022. They're planning on tearing down all the stadium's save one after the games.

And then there's the distaste of the corruption needed to 'win' the games. Many places aren't going to go that route anymore.

------------------

But people are getting smart about it. The IOC opened up bidding for the 2022 Winter Games. They want the games in the Americas or non-CIS Europe. Well there are exactly zero bids from the US, Zero bids from Canada, and Zero bids from Europe. As of now, only two bidders, Beijing and Almaty in Kazakhstan. The IOC is apparently deeply offended and worried that the West, from whom the vast majority of the IOC's legal revenues come from (TV etc.) have basically said "we're washing our hands of the whole mess". If no one in a civilized country is willing to host, then the Winter Games will sink into irrelevance. The feedback that the IOC is getting from some Western venues is, 'we really don't want the games in 2022 and we really don't think we're going to want them anytime in future if this is how we have to bid for the games and spend to produce them'. There are limited places the IOC can host a Winter Olympiad.

---------------------

I think the US should bid on the World Cup in 2026. They should announce that the bid will take the following form. "We will not build any stadiums, but will place the turf of your choosing in the existing stadiums used to host the games. We have any number of fantastic, already built stadiums to propose as venues'. Obviously there's security costs and other costs of putting on the games. So while everyone else is bidding 20 Billion while planning on spending 40 Billion, we will bid 4 Billion to put on the games (which would make the games profitable as a result of TV revenue, licensing revenue etc.).

Basically our bid is a nice way of saying 'you can make the games an orgy of waste, or you can host them without the waste'. We know you'll choose waste, but we just want to highlight that you are choosing waste.

There is some value to hosting the World Cup. The number of fans are greater, they're spread out over a greater area, and they stay for longer periods. But it isn't worth 20 Billion.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending. Studies have shown that host cities actually have less total tourism in hosting years because the number of people avoiding the host city outweigh the number of tourists who travel there for the 2 weeks of the games. Hosting the games also usually involves massive disruptions to commerce. Every single Summer Olympics has lost money since Barcelona in 1992. And most have lost massive amounts of money. They'res no shortage of cities wishing to host the games. I hope none of them are in the US. But its not like any US city will be awarded the games. The IOC, which is largely funded by the US, is extremely anti-American.

You bring up a lot of goof points regarding these international galas and how they will be hosted going forward. For what its worth, I the the Summer Games in Atlanta were at least neutral in terms of expenditure. But going forward, they are going to have to put these events on rotation in places that already have the facilities. For example, every 4th Winter Olympiad is held in SLC or Colorado Springs.

We'll see if Qatar even makes it to the hosts of its World Cup, since the rumor is they've told the USA to be on stand-by should FIFA decide to change its mind. But like you, I'm not interested in hosting these events when to get them you have to bribe officials who are hostile to America interests.

(07-14-2014 11:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:27 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 09:10 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Soccer is popular in other parts of the world BECAUSE they do not have the NFL, NBA or MLB....not because it is a better or more entertaining sport.

Countries that embrace soccer tend to be under developed or plagued with economic crisis. Soccer, is in many cases is the only outlet.

Soccer will never be embraced in the United States like it is elsewhere. Of course the WC brings in great ratings. It is like the olympics. It only comes around every four years. Americans do not have the attention span or the history to embrace soccer on a regular basis.

How do you explain Europe?

I get you don't like soccer and that's cool. However, yesterday my son and I watched the WC final at a neigborhood restaurant/bar. The place was packed and had about 20 TV's all tuned to the match. Not as many folks as when the US played, but still a packed house.

Europe is surrounded by their own enemies. We are not. We are not anything like Europe.

What does that have to do with soccer?

(07-14-2014 11:44 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here are the main reasons soccer will never become mainstream in America

1) The vast majority of Americans simply view soccer as too 'foreign'. Football is the number one sport followed by the great American pastime of baseball and the passion of basketball. These three sports somehow bring forth national and regional pride that cannot be captured by Soccer. There is no feeling of 'closeness' to the teams or the entire idea. In America people are fiercely loyal to their local teams. They display this on their cars and their clothing. It is not only as source of pride in the sport but also in where you are from and who you are.

2) For the vast majority of Americans Soccer is simply boring. There is no blood and guts in the sport. It does not have the intensity of football or even baseball. It does not have the extremes of Basketball. It is just flat out boring to watch. Yes, as children we like to play it but certainly don't want to actually watch it unless our kids are playing the sport. Then we are forced to be in the audience but to spend an entire Sunday watching Soccer is just not in the DNA of most Americans who crave a harder sport with more excitement.

3) Even the scoring of Soccer is boring. Many Americans just shake their head over the whole score concept of Soccer and force out a yawn when asked.

4) There is simply no strategy in Soccer. It is no where near as strategic as football.

5) We are not surrounded by nations that are our adversaries. No other nation is our equal, therefore, global rivalries are not as important to us as they are to less powerful nations.

I can see your reasoning in most of those. I used to feel the same way, but that was mainly because I knew zero about soccer.

Soccer seems too "foreign" mainly because we have sucked at if for so long. If we were great, pretty sure the "foreign" stuff wouldn't matter.

No blood and guts? Did you see the German and Argentine players damn near get knocked out during the match? Also, Messi was throwing up on the field during the first half.

There's plenty of strategy in soccer. I imagine Germany spent all week coming up with a strategy to stop Messi. Again, it reminds me of baseball, another sport lots of folks consider boring. IMO, that's because said folks don't realize all the strategy going on throughout the baseball game. Same with soccer.

Mexico/US has become quite a heated rilvary. Apparently Landon Donavan urinated on the Mexican's field one day.

Soccer should change the offside rule. Don't let people blatantly goal poach but don't break up "fast breaks." Maybe we'd see more 5-4 scores as opposed to 0-0 ties.

(07-14-2014 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  What does that have to do with soccer?

I believe he's saying that national rivalries (e.g. France-Germany, Portugal-Spain, etc...) are bigger because there are more countries in the general proximity that have centuries (if not millennia) of rivalry against each other as opposed to the US, whose main enemies have never been anywhere close (except for Cuba, which was really a smokescreen for the USSR and China) and whose other nearby countries they have friendly relations with (Mexico and especially Canada).

That said, as has been pointed out, the US and Mexico have a huge soccer rivalry but it still barely registers with the non-Latino or soccer loving American.

(07-14-2014 02:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Soccer should change the offside rule. Don't let people blatantly goal poach but don't break up "fast breaks." Maybe we'd see more 5-4 scores as opposed to 0-0 ties.

Wouldn't work. You'd have teams playing even more conservatively to prevent a fast break.

If I were to change one rule, I'd stop the grabbing and holding. Of course, that's against the rules (supposedly). But that's not the way they enforce it. There's way too much grabbing and shoving going on. And if you got rid of it, the scoring would take care of itself.

I'd like replays, then the referees could enforce no diving with correct decisions and yellow cards, that would put an end to it pretty quickly.

(07-14-2014 12:43 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 12:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:57 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Your opinion was just as valid as any other until this point.

Just trying to give you the reasons.

Soccer isn't dependent on international rivalries. International play is a relatively small segment of the sport. Even then Mexico is a BIG rivalry. Put that game anywhere in either of the two countries and you'll get over 100K.

Now the strategy part is just wrong.

It's not dependent, but it's a component we do not share.

Soccer will never become mainstream in the US and that is another reason why.

Im sure in 20 years ago you probably were saying the events we saw he when it came to watching the WC would never happen.

Fyi 64,000 people decided it was worth watching a domestic soccer game in seattle yesterday

(07-14-2014 02:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 11:44 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Here are the main reasons soccer will never become mainstream in America

1) The vast majority of Americans simply view soccer as too 'foreign'. Football is the number one sport followed by the great American pastime of baseball and the passion of basketball. These three sports somehow bring forth national and regional pride that cannot be captured by Soccer. There is no feeling of 'closeness' to the teams or the entire idea. In America people are fiercely loyal to their local teams. They display this on their cars and their clothing. It is not only as source of pride in the sport but also in where you are from and who you are.

2) For the vast majority of Americans Soccer is simply boring. There is no blood and guts in the sport. It does not have the intensity of football or even baseball. It does not have the extremes of Basketball. It is just flat out boring to watch. Yes, as children we like to play it but certainly don't want to actually watch it unless our kids are playing the sport. Then we are forced to be in the audience but to spend an entire Sunday watching Soccer is just not in the DNA of most Americans who crave a harder sport with more excitement.

3) Even the scoring of Soccer is boring. Many Americans just shake their head over the whole score concept of Soccer and force out a yawn when asked.

4) There is simply no strategy in Soccer. It is no where near as strategic as football.

5) We are not surrounded by nations that are our adversaries. No other nation is our equal, therefore, global rivalries are not as important to us as they are to less powerful nations.

I can see your reasoning in most of those. I used to feel the same way, but that was mainly because I knew zero about soccer.

Soccer seems too "foreign" mainly because we have sucked at if for so long. If we were great, pretty sure the "foreign" stuff wouldn't matter.

No blood and guts? Did you see the German and Argentine players damn near get knocked out during the match? Also, Messi was throwing up on the field during the first half.

There's plenty of strategy in soccer. I imagine Germany spent all week coming up with a strategy to stop Messi. Again, it reminds me of baseball, another sport lots of folks consider boring. IMO, that's because said folks don't realize all the strategy going on throughout the baseball game. Same with soccer.

Mexico/US has become quite a heated rilvary. Apparently Landon Donavan urinated on the Mexican's field one day.

There is a legitimate reason that soccer took on a "foreign" feel. It was a mixture of FIFA interference and the depression.

Before the Soccer Wars, soccer was jostling for popularity with professional American football.

(07-14-2014 03:15 PM)ODUgradstudent Wrote:  I'd like replays, then the referees could enforce no diving with correct decisions and yellow cards, that would put an end to it pretty quickly.

You wouldn't need replays. Just give a game ban after watching it between games.